In a recent decision out of the District of Connecticut, defendants MacBeth Collection, L.L.C, its affiliates, and owner found themselves in hot water when Judge Merriam determined they violated a permanent injunction barring the sale of certain products accused of trademark infringement. At issue was defendants’ whale-themed merchandise, which Vineyard Vines accused of misappropriating Vineyard … Continue Reading

After a lengthy and circuitous patent proceeding between plaintiff O.F. Mossberg & Sons (“Mossberg”) and defendants Timney Triggers, LLC and its related manufacturing entity (collectively, “Timney”), which ultimately resulted in Mossberg voluntarily dismissing the action, Judge Bolden of the District of Connecticut recently determined that the case was not “exceptional” such as to warrant awarding … Continue Reading

In a recent decision involving a dispute between head-to-head competitors in the market for “poster boards and poster board accessory products,” Judge Bolden in the District of Connecticut dismissed defendant Royal Consumer Products, LLC’s (“Royal”) counterclaim for false patent marking for failure to plead the claim with sufficient particularity. According to the decision, Plaintiff ArtSkills, … Continue Reading

In a recent decision from the District of Connecticut, Judge Meyer awarded attorneys’ fees against a plaintiff who the court found brought an “objectively unreasonable” copyright infringement claim based on an unpublished work of non-fiction. Plaintiff Joseph Leary’s 2013 action alleged that a book written by defendants Roy Manstan (“Manstan”) and Frederic Frese (“Frese”), and … Continue Reading

A basic tenet of litigation is that the court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties to the case. In one recent decision, an out-of-state defendant in a trademark infringement dispute could not use a motion to dismiss to escape from the reach of the District of Connecticut court. The court found sufficient evidence to show that it had personal … Continue Reading

A recent opinion from Judge Shea in the District of Connecticut sheds important light on the sufficiency of pleadings in declaratory judgment patent cases. Noting that declaratory judgment actions are of particular importance in the intellectual property sphere, Judge Shea denied a motion to dismiss a complaint – even though the complaint included patents issued after the action … Continue Reading

In an ongoing patent infringement case involving patents for floor-mounted electrical outlet housings, a federal court in Connecticut recently denied a Joint Motion for a Discovery Dispute Conference, signaling the court’s hesitation to delay the initiation of discovery pursuant to Rule 26(f) merely because a defendant represents that it intends to move to dismiss a … Continue Reading

A recent decision from the District of Connecticut is part of a series of copyright cases where a plaintiff, unable to identify the accused infringer except by the Internet Protocol (or “IP) address used at the time of the alleged infringement, has sought and received pre-service leave to serve a subpoena upon the Internet Service Provider (or … Continue Reading

A recent case from the District of Connecticut provides important insight into personal jurisdiction analysis, and serves as a reminder that sometimes even modest connections to a state can render a company subject to suit in that state. Here, Judge Vanessa Bryant found that Connecticut could exercise personal jurisdiction over AMP Medical Products, a Nevada company that sold … Continue Reading

As the first-filed paper in nearly any litigation, the complaint is typically subject to rigorous scrutiny from the named defendant to identify any flaws that may dispatch the case via a motion to dismiss. A plaintiff in the District of Connecticut recently felt this pain, as its complaint was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing … Continue Reading

Rather than wait around for the hammer to fall, companies under threat of an intellectual property lawsuit sometimes choose to file a declaratory judgment complaint. Such “DJ” complaints usually ask the court to clear the air and decide the issue in the filer’s favor. Declaratory judgment filers are often motivated by the fact that they can … Continue Reading

In a recent decision, Judge Vanessa L. Bryant shed some light on a significant new issue: trademark infringement in the world of internet keyword advertising. In a case with important implications for online marketing strategies, Judge Bryant denied Provide Commerce’s request for partial summary judgment against trademark owner Edible Arrangements, which had filed a suit … Continue Reading

In a recent case involving competitors in the market of storm water chambers, underground structures for the collection and management of rain and snow storm water, the District of Connecticut court denied a motion for preliminary injunction, reasoning in part that there was too long of a delay between when the plaintiff, StormTech, learned of … Continue Reading

Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer of the District of Connecticut recently released an opinion that is significant to litigants on either side of a covenant not to sue. In a complex case with a host of claims and counterclaims asserted among the parties, the patentee’s grant of a covenant not to sue on the asserted patent … Continue Reading

In a recent opinion in a patent infringement case concerning a baseball pitching simulator, Judge Vanessa Bryant in the District of Connecticut issued an order to administratively close the case, pending further damages discovery. The discovery was needed because the plaintiff ProBatter apparently disclosed a new damages theory late in the case, just months before trial. … Continue Reading

A recent decision from Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer in the District of Connecticut may make waves in the world of nonfiction copyright. The decision throws out a copyright case that, among other things, emphasized two similarities between the copyrighted work and the accused work: both engaged in the use of “flash-back” and “flash-forward” storytelling techniques, and … Continue Reading

Two recent orders from the District of Connecticut demonstrate that the element of surprise continues to be an effective, and sometimes necessary, factor in copyright litigation. The June 26, 2015 orders issued by the Honorable Vanessa L. Bryant, granted plaintiff Cisco Technology, Inc.’s ex parte applications for temporary restraining orders and enjoined the defendants – … Continue Reading

Days after the PTAB instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR), Judge Alvin Thompson in the District of Connecticut has stayed a case between Conair and Tre Milano. Conair sued Tre Milano in October 2014, for infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,651,118, which relates to a hair styling device. On February 2, 2015, Tre Milano filed a petition … Continue Reading

In the District of Connecticut, an out of state publisher with no alleged direct contacts with Connecticut recently lost its bid to have a case against it dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Gerald Brittle sued Lorraine Warren, Tony Spera, and Graymalkin Media, LLC for copyright infringement and tortious interference with a contract or business … Continue Reading

Plaintiff Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), a music rights management organization that offers licenses to a massive catalogue of popular songs on behalf of copyright owners, brought suit for copyright infringement against the owners of the La Roue Elayne restaurant for unlicensed performance of live cover versions of eight songs in a single evening. This suit … Continue Reading

In yet another case in the District of Connecticut, Protegrity has seen its claims for indirect and willful infringement dismissed because, according to the court, its complaint did not plead sufficient facts. District Judge Robert Chatigny granted AJB Software’s motion to dismiss, agreeing with AJB that the “bare bones” allegations in Protegrity’s complaint were insufficient … Continue Reading

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered nearly twenty patent cases pending across six districts (including Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and the Northern and Southern districts of California) and involving fifteen different companies to proceed collectively in the Northern District of California. The decision may be a drawback for plaintiff Protegrity Corporation which originally moved … Continue Reading

Plaintiffs considering bringing suit in the District of Connecticut take heed: “Plaintiffs cannot vest a Connecticut court with personal jurisdiction over a person simply by hurling an accusation of patent infringement across the country at that person and then receiving responses in Connecticut,” according to a recent order from Judge Shea. To provide some background, … Continue Reading

There is no need to wait for the Patent Office to institute a review. According to a recent order from Magistrate Judge Margolis in the District of Connecticut, the district court may stay a patent litigation as long as the defendant has filed a petition at the Patent Office requesting a patent validity review under the … Continue Reading

Stay Connected

About Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer is a leading international law firm focused on creating value. Our roots go back to 1875, when we were founded in New York City. With 725+ lawyers active in virtually every major market worldwide, we are recognized not only for our legal excellence, but also our dedication to client service.

Our clients include many of the world’s top companies, financial institutions, investment funds, not-for-profit institutions, governmental entities and other organizations across industries and borders. We also represent individuals in transactions and other matters.

In addition to New York, we have offices in Beijing, Boston, Chicago, Hong Kong, London, Los Angeles, Paris, São Paulo and Washington, D.C., as well as Boca Raton, Newark and New Orleans.

This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.